Table 5.

Qualitative assessment of Charles’ creativity according to the indicators of the creating skills in performing arts repository based on Fortin’s reference framework, before and after training.

Creating Skills
1—Quality of presence to oneself, to the world, to experience (indicators: physical, emotional and intellectual availability; imagination; listening, observation; acceptance of the new, of the unknown).
Before training	After training
Low quality of presence (a) Awareness of himself -Charles’s emotional control is well below the average for his age group (see Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4). -Charles shows a medium average of intra-individual awareness (see Figure 3) -Charles frequently refuses to take part in activities, when a situation is unusual and he feels upset: disengagement in the task (see Figure 4 and Figure 5a). The actor interprets this blockage quite positively: “he was equally quick to assess those moving around him and change his own actions when realising he was not ‘correct’. And equally quick at removing himself from an activity or situation that he didn’t like—this quality was strong from the start and stayed until the end and an important part of his personally creative process because it gave him the chance to express and understand what was bothering him, which in turn he could use in his performance. For example: the emotion in his voice” (actor testimony). -(b) Awareness of others and the environment -Charles shows a low average of inter-individual awareness (see Figure 3)	Higher quality of presence (a) Awareness of himself -Charles’s emotional control improves significantly (see Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4) -When he feels upset: Charles needs to talk to an adult for reassurance, but he resumes activities (re-engagement. See Figure 4 and Figure 5b). -“He can get angry quickly but calms down just as quickly when the adult listens to him and decodes the situation” (teacher testimony). -Observation of his behaviour on the videos shows that during the last session, when he was feeling very angry after an argument with a classmate, Charles still chose to participate in the activity but interpreted his character as angry. He now seems able to use his emotion (in this case anger in the last session) as an aesthetic object. (b) Awareness of others and the environment -Charles’ average of intra-individual awareness remains more or less stable but his inter-individual awareness doubles.
2—Quality of the exploration of the postural, mimicry and gestural expression (indicators: risk-taking by creating new worlds: ability of students to create and express themselves with the body; appropriation of instructions; commitment)
Before training	After training
Low quality of exploration -“Playing with the volume of his voice, his posture or in role-playing activities and/or debates is difficult for Charles” (interview with the inclusion teacher). -The researchers observe that he lets himself be guided by his peers (indirect observations through the audio-video recordings from the language pre-test and drama sessions 1 and 2) -He reproduces patterns (repeats) (indirect observations through the audio-video recordings from the language pre-test) -He imitates his classmates rather than to propose something (indirect observations through the audio-video recordings) -“He says he loves American culture but gets angry quickly when he doesn’t understand what is being asked of him in English” (Teacher testimony). -“Charles is inactive if not solicited” (teacher testimony).	Higher quality of exploration -Analysis of the audio-video recordings of the final workshop sessions (7 and 8) showed that Charles was making suggestions at the end of the project, unlike at the beginning. He makes scenic proposals, both in terms of postural and gestural acting, and in terms of the emotional interpretation of the character being played. -“Charles let his own idea (ex. his version of a bench) inspire a new idea (ex. Driving a car?) showing fluid creativity and openness to letting it evolve” (actor testimony). -“He smiles; he is engaged, accompanied by another pupil, to prepare something to show to the others” (teacher testimony). -“[After the experiment], during the circle activities at the beginning of the lesson in class, he can show initiative—often when other pupils have already done so (e.g., instead of passing the flower to his neighbour with the sentence ‘I give you a flower’, he mimes throwing it on the ground to trample it—with a big smile) (teacher testimony). -The actor writes: “I noticed that by the end of the project, in moments of distraction, his impulsive actions were more often away from other classmates, exploring gestures alone, rather than exciting/distracting others. At the start of the project his creativity came from his interactions with others, but towards the end it came more from within, from his own ideas. He became more and more expressive with his arms, whereas start he was more constricted, perhaps reluctant to engage his whole body” (actor testimony).
3—Quality of the organisation of time, space and materials for creation (indicators: anticipation of the whole project; taking initiatives)
Before training	After training
Low quality of organisation His material organisation’s score by the BRIEF test is low (83 points).	Low quality of organisation Despite a very slight improvement in the score (79 points: reversed scores), the material organisation’s score from Charles did not change significantly. We do not have sufficient data to position Charles’ behaviour on this indicator. At this stage, it seems that Charles is not more able to anticipate future events, to plan ahead, to put in place appropriate measures in advance to carry out an action or task, or to carry out tasks in a more systematic way.
4—Quality of collaboration with partners (indicators: ability of students to adapt their behaviour; contribution to teamwork; establishing a relationship climate; listening to the ideas of others)
Before training	After training
Low quality of collaboration -“Charles is inactive if not solicited” (Teacher’s testimony) -His interpersonal awareness is well below average (see Figure 3) -His body engagement rates show a disengagement by performing activities in the first drama sessions (see Figure 4). -Charles says, he learned English at home with Google translate and he does not mention any interaction with his peers or learning situations in the classroom, even though he has been learning English at school for 3 years. (Charles’ semi-directive interview).	Higher quality of collaboration -Charles improves his emotional awareness scores, especially towards others (see Figure 3). -His behavioural regulation (inhibition, flexibility and emotional control) improves significantly (see Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4). -He interacts with peers (audio-video observations): “he communicates with some of the students in the class (male or female), he is willing to work in a group” (Teacher testimony). -His engagement by performing activities increases significantly (see Figure 4).
5—Quality of reflection on one’s work and the group’s work (indicators: analysing one’s own work and that of others; verbalising opinions; consideration of comments and criticism; renewal of one’s representations and perceptions)
Before training	After training
Low quality of reflection -The audio-video recordings of sessions 1 and 2 show that Charles often refuses to answer questions. -He accepts the proposals from others but seems to be passive (audio-video recordings of sessions 1 and 2)	Higher quality of reflection -He accepts most of the time to answer questions (audio-video recordings of sessions 7 and 8) -He proposes scenarios to the group (audio-video recordings of sessions 7 and 8)
6—Quality of the formatting of the work (indicators: quality of the role play; interpretation)
Before training	After training
Low quality of formatting -No gestures (pre-test of language) -No gestures and no facial expression, except when he gets angry. No scenic proposals	Higher quality of formatting -The auditory analysis of the prosodic curve shows a slight improvement in the post-test compared to the pre-test. The results of the language post-test also show a slight increase in the rate of speech and a more spontaneous reaction in the proposals. He expresses more feelings in his melodic curve than in the pre-test, where the prosody remained monotonous despite emotional content (“I am happy”). -He makes more gestures and shows more facial expression (observations from the teacher in the classroom, observations in the sessions 7 and 8)
7—Quality of the verbal expression (indicators: ability of speakers to produce new language appropriate to the context, originality of the verbal language, i.e., new words or new combination of words)
Before training	After training
Low quality of verbal expression -Charles does not speak spontaneously in class. He reproduces models without autonomous proposals (teacher testimonial and video-observations) -Prosody: Typical of French intonation, Charles’ intonation curve is flat (auditory analysis of the language pre-test).	Higher quality of verbal expression -In classroom exercises after the training, his English fluency, as “the ability to produce several original responses quickly” (Monette and Bigras 2008, p. 325), has improved both behaviourally (gestures and facial expression) and verbally (teacher testimony). -Nevertheless, in the post-test situation, Charles still produces only one sentence and relies a lot on the proposals of his peers. -He uses better prosody in the drama-sessions too: “sometimes, he is just mumbling, and sometimes with an excellent accent” (actor testimony). -He shows more autonomy and spontaneity in verbal production regarding the academic expectations, after the performative theatre training. The teacher notices: “I think the drama practice was an opportunity for Charles to be required to communicate with others, to have to expose himself to the gaze of others. [It was for him the opportunity] to realise that he can do what others do and to realise that the gaze of others can be benevolent” (teacher testimony). -“Despite his hunger to understand why we did certain things and what it meant, he never hesitated to speak (or sing!) in English, sometimes just mumbling, and sometimes with an excellent accent” (actor testimony). -Charles produces humour using English: “When he was supposed to give a flower to a friend, he handed her the imaginary flower and, at the last moment, mimed crushing it under his foot and told her aggressively “I give you a flower!” He then begins to laugh, enjoying the surprised laughter of his friends” (teacher testimony). -“He transforms sometimes sentences to create new ones (e.g., can you play tennis?>Can you play Fifa22)” (teacher testimony) -“[he] has memorised simple English phrases and uses them appropriately”, “[he is] able to ask a question spontaneously (in English)” (teacher testimony).

Nota bene: The bold highlights in the textual quotations correspond to the coded elements of the corpus, which allowed us to sort them into the categories corresponding to the 6 observables of creativity. This coding was carried out in a double-blind setting.